James, it's a deeply flawed concept, for many reasons.JamesXander wrote:Aidan wrote:Struth, what a disappointment! 'Tis hard to tell which party's vision for the railyards is worse
The wrong kind of stadium (and without the redeeming frog cake aesthetics), an attempt to cram the interstate trains into a subsurface facility far too small, many buildings extremely inappropriate for the parklands location, and replacing perfectly good suburban facilities with high density housing.
Don't any politicians want development appropriate for the location?
Aidan, its a concept. Obviously developers and architects would come up with ideas for the stations, centres, casinos & stadium
Firstly it's a terrible location for a station, as it's too small. And one of the biggest problems of Keswick terminal is poor links with the suburban rail system. This plan fails to solve it.
Adelaide Oval is one of the best cricket grounds in the world, and the redevelopment that's already started will make it great for footy as well. We don't need another oval stadium in our parklands - what we need is a rectangular stadium. And a closing roof would be a waste of money. Also, if we're building a new stadium on the railyards, and we have all that land to choose from, it would be better to locate it at the City end.
Then there's all these new buildings intruding into the Parklands. I'm not one of those people who thinks nothing should be built in the Parklands - indeed I'd still like that Victoria Park grandstand to be built! But I think the development should be appropriate to the location, and should be built into the ground (like our national Parliament House) unless the building's function prevents it. It's not the curved panel and torso designs that I object to, it's the fact that there are tall buildings there at all. They're appropriate for the City, but not for the Parklands.
And the removal of suburban facilities is not a minor detail that architects would change, it's a defining feature of the plan, and a major drawback.